I’d really like to see more of this on BraveNewClimate.

I’d really like to see more similar guest posts with names such as Green or Lowe or Ludlam or Diesendorf or Caldicott on them.

I’m sure Barry would be completely happy to host more guest posts from these people – but to be honest, I really don’t expect that we’ll see any such posts coming again any time soon.

We all need to keep open minds. I have not been a big fan of nuclear energy, for several reasons, weapons proliferation concerns being at the top of the list. After reading the comments here, I am still not convinced since obviously many who have studied the issue of nuclear energy much more than I have are arguing about it. I can see how frustrating it must be for advocates of nuclear to convey their thoughts to the general public on such a complex issue. It’s not unlike the confusion over climate change, since the public can’t grasp the scientific issues. Americans may say they want nuclear power, but to build say 400 new plants means eight new nuclear plants per state on average and I can’t see how that wont run into NIMBY blockages, even if peoples fears are not realistic. My opinion is that renewables that are ready to build now should be supported. Wind energy in the U.S. grew by 18GW in two years. Giving wind a 30% capacity factor makes it the equivalent of 5.5 average size nuclear plants built in two years. So lets not stifle what is working because we think there is only one solution. The new nuclear technologies that are being talked about are not ready for deployment on a commercial scale yet. In the meantime lets use all the tools we have that are.

Australia, the Mid-East, North Africa and other areas also have enormous potential.

However you have tabled no proof of your accusations at all, which typical of every antinuclear claim of conspiracy of this sort. Until you do, there is no point in attempting to address this issue, as I said before.

The issue of when F decided to go nuclear is a red (North Sea) herring.

The main point is surely your obdurate or should I say fanatical refusal to address the topic of human frailty as exemplified by loose or corrupt NPP regulatory regimes in F or elsewhere. Prima facie, you seem happy to have Gen. IIIs or IVs built in seismically-active zones, the way Gen II. NPP Fessenheim is.

Tom Blees deals with regulatory malfeasance for the USA in his book, and not only in the section dealing with GREAT. I implied months ago on this blog that BNC acolytes were de facto cherry-picking Blees’ work (which I read), and Jim Green then cited on BNC the passages I was referring to.

We were met by resounding silence. QED.

If the best you can do is to upbraid me for a spelling mistake, and quote an old horses’ ass who stuck his foot in his mouth, then you have apparently run out of real arguments, to the extent you had any to begin with. It still stands that French commitment to the development of nuclear energy predates any of the North Sea discoveries, which was the point of my argument.

If in fact you know the situation in France as well as I do, then you you should know what the people there think of nuclear energy. But if you are going to suggest that there is general acceptance because the population has has been misinformed by the government, then apparently your opinion of the intellectual capacity of the French people is one of deep contempt, and one I obviously do not share.

Again as for Fessenheim, I hardly see any evidence bureaucratic malfeasance in the link you offered, nor does the existence of a small antinuclear association prove anything along these lines ether.

But really, the fact that you have now sunk to ad hom attacks, and making veiled insults, in an attempt to undermine my credibility, is more than enough indication that you have run out of any real arguments. If you can’t bring anything else to the table, then this discussion is over.

hmm, technical problems, but here is the link for you as Francophone:

http://web.archive.org/web/20070929090841/http://www.asn.fr/sections/rubriquesprincipales/actualites/communiques-presse/2000/erreur-conception

..here is the press release from the French NPP supervisor:

<>

dear me, you are getting testy. If you going to quote de Gaulle, (not de Gaul, that is the English spelling of Gallia), please spell his name properly: “Nous n’avons aucune concession, ni même aucune amabilité, à faire à M. Trudeau, qui est l’adversaire de la chose française au Canada.”

your apparent assumptions about my nationality, command of languages and geographical location amuse. And why accusations of bureaucratic malfeasance such as are routine in this world do not “warrant an answer” is par for your course, if I may use an Anglo golfing metaphor. Hence it is striking that you seem to be issuing all and any NPP supervisors a blank cheque/clean bill of health. But I need look no further than Tom Blees’ comments in his book on the situation in the USA, which is one of connivance.

As regards Fessenheim, built near the Rhine valley fault, no doubt you will want to class “erreur de conception” (see text below) as being outside malfeasance, ..signed Your Deeply Idiotic Ignorant Interlocutor.

FYI, there is a 130-strong association including the municipalities of Basle and Freiburg which have been trying at court for years to get Fessenheim closed down: L’Association trinationale de protection de la population des alentours de Fessenheim (ATPN)). They will all be Deeply Ignorant as well.

<>

I was attempting to describe the general feelings that seem to underlay French attitudes toward nuclear energy, and show that there appears to be a understanding among its citizens that France is a nation that can handle nuclear power, even though there is a general acceptance of the the dangers – as the population understands those dangers rightly or wrongly. It is also germane to add that this attitude is mixed with feelings about France being a nuclear weapons state. Again there is an understanding of the magnitude of the responsibility, and a feeling that France is a country that can be trusted to posses such a weapon.

Perhaps I should not have used the phrase “cognizant of the potential dangers” to indicate that that the attitudes there are not a product of ignorance, any more than they are of indifference, and I can see how you in particular would chose to interpret this as some sort of admission that I see dangers in nuclear power. I assure you it is not, but it was a sloppy use of language, and I apologize for not being more selective in my choice of phrase.

There is a small, but active antinuclear movement in France, however it doesn’t even come close to similar organizations in other countries, and does not enjoy the tacit support of the public by being on the side of majority opinion as they do elsewhere.

As for France’s concern with energy independence, this is something that developed long before the North Sea discoveries. De Gaul was the one I believe who said: “No oil, no coal, no gas, no choice,” in relation to France’s need to pursue nuclear power, back in the late Fifties.

As for your idiotic accusations of bureaucratic malfeasance, this only illustrates your own deep ignorance and does not warrant an answer.

that the French are more arrogant and confident than Anglosphere people and by implication that this drives their stance on NPPs.

For a man who otherwise cultivates scientific stringency I find your statement astonishingly jejeune. How do you operationalise or parametrise arrogance and confidence? is your statement not equivalent to any North American person smearing countries which do not fall into line with US/CAN foreign policy as “hypernationalistic?”

I talked today to a French national who was politically aware already in the post-oil shock 70s. She related the official Paris stance on NPPs at that time to energy autarky. She said that autarky was the NPP rationale/spin imparted to the French voters by the govt. In view of North Sea oil going strong for UK/Norway at that time I can see the point.

By the way I am intrigued to read you stating that NPPs have potential dangers. I had thought you thought there were none, and that anybody who thought different was merely hysterical and in thrall to Caldicott? Please explain.

Do you therefore agree with me when I say (yet again) that bureaucratic malfeasance in eg France makes the Gen II NPP at Fessenheim quite dangerous because it is near the Rhine valley fault?

I rather think you slipped in a reference to Adolph Hitler for shock value.

Anyway, If you’re saying that pro-nuclear advocates need to launch a propaganda campaign of some kind to sell nuclear power to the public, I see little to disagree with. I’ll go further, and claim that the lack of an effective campaign thus far demonstrates the extent to which this is so far a grassroots movement with little professional PR input, and little in the way of major funding from industry, govrnment, or other interested parties.

the u.s. has done enough damage. a spike in national chauvinism coming hard upon our 15-20 percent real unemployment rate would be too steep a price to pay for any source of electricity.

In the case of nuclear energy, the level of public misunderstanding is very, very high in many countries. This is largely because certain NGO’s have been misrepresenting the issues. I believe that one of the first things the pronuclear movement must do is to reach out to the public and correct these common misconceptions. We must do this, I believe, before we make too much of an effort to lobby government because, without public support, such efforts will not be as effective. I wouldn’t read much more into it than that.

“I have seen no studies demonstrating that scientific literacy in France is higher than in the USA. Do you know any? Yet the French public is largely happy with NPPs.”

I have looked carefully at the French public’s relationship with nuclear energy, in an effort to understand what was done right there. I am also a native Francophone, so I have been able to look somewhat deeper into this than most English commenters.

It may surprise many to learn that the French public is just as cognizant of the potential dangers, and harbor many of the same misgivings that those in other countries have about nuclear energy. They are also not free of many of the same misconceptions as well.

However one should not make the mistake of assuming that France is only different from other Western nations because of the language that it speaks. Attitudes are very different, thus you can hear people being interviewed on television making statements like: “Of course nuclear energy is dangerous, but we in France have proven that we can be trusted with such a technology; others like the Russians obviously cannot”

The French population may or may not be more scientifically literate then those in the Anglosphere, that is not the relevant factor. They are however, a good deal more arrogant, and confident in themselves as a people.

I don’t know about scientific illiteracy in france but my guess is it’s much lower. I’ll bet there is a far higher percentage of creationists, for example, in the u.s..

but you raise the npp issue. I was talking about global warming. the american public is on the whole actually not opposed to nuclear power plants. The environmental movement is. this doesn’t mean the american public is exactly pro nuclear. It’s not that much in the public consciousness one way or another.

I think the questions you raise are different depending on whether we are talking about npps or global warming.

In the early 90′s, EDF ran a publicity campaign telling people that their electricity was mostly nuclear. One particular ad had a man complaining to his neighbour about his electric drill, the neighbour replied that it was a nuclear drill. He was emphasising how reliable electricity in France is provided by nuclear power.

I bet a great many people here will remember that still, and I think that it has had a long-lasting effect on them. My impression (purely personal, no numbers to back it up) is that most French are simply happy to have cheap, reliable power, and know that it is because it is nuclear in origin.

I think a good PR campaign has a lot to be said for it.

In the case of nuclear energy, the level of public misunderstanding is very, very high in many countries. This is largely because certain NGO’s have been misrepresenting the issues. I believe that one of the first things the pronuclear movement must do is to reach out to the public and correct these common misconceptions. We must do this, I believe, before we make too much of an effort to lobby government, because, without public support, such efforts will not be as effective. I wouldn’t read much more into it than that.

“I have seen no studies demonstrating that scientific literacy in France is higher than in the USA. Do you know any? Yet the French public is largely happy with NPPs.”

I have looked carefully at the French public’s relationship with nuclear energy, in an effort to understand what was done right there. I am also a native Francophone, so I have been able to look somewhat deeper into this than most English commenters.

It may surprise many to learn that the French public is just as cognizant of the potential dangers, and harbor many of the same misgivings that those in other countries have. They are also not free of many of the same misconceptions as well.

However one should not make the mistake of assuming that France is only different from other Western nations because of the language that it speaks. Attitudes are very different, thus you can hear people being interviewed on television making statements like: “

Hitler fits in insofar as he praises in vol. 1 of Mein Kampf various propaganda methods used by the Allies in WW1 and urges Germany to adopt them. Edward Bernays and US political consultants followed on, 1920 to date. Yeltsin won because of them. Such spin doctors worked in eg Ukraine in the recent presid. election for lack of income options at present in the USA, it being off-season for campaigning there.

Example of the method: the AU singer Kylie Minogue had breast cancer recently. The media hype around that apparently led to thousands of AU women interested in this person going for cancer checks.

A PR implication for Nukies would be to get some celebrity to attest how her cancer was “healed by” some radioactive isotope tracer produced in an NPP, preferably by having her mince around the facility itself.

@Meyerson:

1. I agree with your last sentence.
2. you write that AGW denial in USA is mainly scientific illiteracy. I have seen no studies demonstrating that scientific literacy in France is higher than in the USA. Do you know any? Yet the French public is largely happy with NPPs. How does one define scient. literacy in regard of NPPs, by the way? A good pass in Biology at university entrance level? Or in Physics without any teaching content to do with applied nuclear physics?